Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
2nd July to 15th July 1946

A. When I came to myself I could not see anything and then I
crawled away, and crawled until I knocked my head against a
tank block.

Q. Where did you go to that night?

A. Then I waited there for a while and then I said farewell
to my drivers, some of whom were still there, and then I
stayed in the ruins of Berlin, and then the following day I
left Berlin.

Q. Where were you captured?

[Page 76]

A. I was captured at Berchtesgaden.

BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle):

Q. How near were you to the tank when it exploded?

A. I estimate three to four metres.

Q. And how near was Bormann to the tank when it exploded?

A. I assume that he was holding on to it with one hand.

Q. Well, you say you assume it. Did you see him or did you
not see him?

A. I did not see him on the tank itself. I had done the same
thing in order to keep up with the tank and had held on to
the tank behind.

Q. Did you see Bormann trying to get on the tank just before
the explosion?

A. No, I did not see that. I did not see any effort on
Bormann's part which
indicated that he wanted to climb on to the tank.

Q. How long before the explosion were you looking at
Bormann?

A. All this happened in a very brief period. When I was
still talking to Bormann the tanks arrived and we went
through the tank trap right away and after thirty or forty
metres the tank was hit.

Q. What do you call a brief period?

A. Well, during the conversation, that was perhaps only a
few minutes.

Q. And how long between the conversation and the explosion?

A. I cannot tell you the exact time, but surely it was not a
quarter of an hour, or perhaps rather not half an hour.

Q. Had you been in the Chancellery just before this?

A. I left the Reich Chancellery in the evening about nine
o'clock.

Q. Have you ever told this story to anyone else?

A. I have been interrogated several times about this and
have already made the same statement.

Q. And who took your interrogation, some officers?

A. Yes.

Q. Of what army, what nation?

A. I have been interrogated by various officers of the
American Army, the first time at Berchtesgaden, the second
time at Freising and the third time at Oberursel.

MR. DODD: As a result of the Tribunal's inquiry there are
one or two questions that occur to me that I think perhaps
should be brought out which I would like to ask the witness,
if I may.

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. DODD:

Q. You were with Bormann, were you, at 9 o'clock in the
bunker in the Reich Chancellery, on that night?

A. Yes, indeed. I saw him for the last time about 9 o'clock
in the evening. When I said farewell to Dr. Goebbels, I also
saw Martin Bormann down in the cellar and then I saw him
again during the night about two or three o'clock in the
morning.

Q. Well, maybe you said so but I did not get it if you did.
Where did you see him at two or three in the morning prior
to the time that you started to walk with him along with the
tank?

A. Before that I saw him at the Friedrichstrasse Station
between two or three in the morning and before that I saw
him for the last time at 21 hours in the Reich Chancellery.

Q. Well, I know you did. But did not you and Bormann have
any conversation about how you would get out of Berlin when
you left the Reich Chancellery bunker at about nine o'clock
that night?

A. I took my orders from former Brigadefuehrer Milunke. I
was not receiving direct orders from Reichsleiter Bormann
any more.

[Page 77]

Q. I did not ask you if you got an order from him. I asked
if you and Bormann had not, and whoever else was there had
not, discussed how you would get out of Berlin. It was nine
o'clock at night and the situation was getting pretty
desperate. Did you not talk about how you would get out that
night? There were not many of you there.

A. Yes, there were about four to five hundred people in all
still in the Reich Chancellery and those four or five
hundred people had been divided into separate groups, and
these groups left the Chancellery one by one.

Q. I know there may have been that many in the Chancellery.
I am talking about that bunker that you were in. You
testified about this before, did you not? You told people
that you knew that Hitler was dead as well as Bormann. And
you must have been in the bunker if you knew that.

A. Yes, I have already testified to that effect.

Q. Well, what I want to find out is whether or not you and
Bormann and whoever was left in that bunker talked about
leaving Berlin that night before you left the bunker?

A. No, I did not speak about it any more to Reichsleiter
Bormann at that time. We only had marching orders, which
instructed us, if we were successful, to report at
Fehrbellin to a combat group which we were to join.

Q. You are the only man who has been able to testify that
Hitler is dead and the only one who has been able to testify
that Bormann is dead; is that so, so far as you know?

A. I can state that Hitler is dead, and that he died on the
30th of April in the afternoon between two and three
o'clock.

Q. I know, but you did not see him die either, did you?

A. No, I did not see him die.

Q. And you told the interrogators that you believe you
carried his body out of the bunker and set it on fire. Are
you not the man who has said that?

A. I carried Adolf Hitler's wife out and I saw Adolf Hitler
himself wrapped in a blanket.

Q. Did you actually see Hitler?

A. Not himself any more. The blanket in which he was wrapped
was rather short and I only saw his legs hanging out.

MR. DODD: I have no further questions, Mr. President.

DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions either.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

DR. BERGOLD: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the witness
Walkenhorst is also, still present here. It appears to me
that there is a misunderstanding between the High Tribunal
and myself. I stated on Saturday that I did not wish to call
any more witnesses besides the witness Kempka and I
expressly waive the witness Walkenhorst.

THE PRESIDENT: What was he - what did you ask him to prove
in the first instance?

DR. BERGOLD: I had originally called him as a substitute -

THE PRESIDENT: We have got your application.

DR. BERGOLD: But after talking to witness Klopfer, whom I
have also waived, I am also waiving the witness Walkenhorst
because he does not appear to me to be. competent enough to
testify on what I wanted him to testify about.

My entire presentation of evidence, therefore, is now
completed, except for the two documents which the Tribunal
have already granted me, namely, the decree about stopping
the measures against the Churches and Bormann's decree of
the year 1944, which forbade members of his Chancellery to
be members of the SD. Those two documents I have not yet
received. When I have received them I shall submit them.

[Page 78]

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Dr. Servatius, you have some question of an affidavit you
wanted to get from this witness Walkenhorst, have you not?

DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for the defendant Sauckel): I have an
affidavit from this witness Walkenhorst which deals briefly
with the question of the telephone conversation which
Sauckel had at that time about the evacuation of the camp at
Buchenwald. He has been accused of having ordered the
evacuation of the camp when the American Army approached.
Now this witness Walkenhorst has accidentally been found and
it turns out that oddly enough he was the man with whom
Sauckel spoke. He has confirmed to me in an affidavit that
Sauckel demanded that the camp should be surrendered in an
orderly way. That is all I wanted to ask this witness.

I can submit it here in the form of an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution want the man called or
will the affidavit do?

DR. SERVATIUS: I am satisfied with handing over the
affidavit.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, as far as the prosecution is
concerned, an affidavit would suffice.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I shall submit the affidavit and I will
give the exhibit number together with my list.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is one other matter to which I
wish to draw the attention of defendants' counsel.

The Tribunal has been informed as to the length of the
speeches of certain of the defendants' counsel which have
been handed to the Translation Division for translation, and
in the cases of the defendant Keitel and of the defendant
Jodl the speeches which have been handed to the Translation
Division seem to be very much longer than the Tribunal had
anticipated they would be, and quite impossible to be spoken
in one day.

Would counsel for the defendant Keitel explain to the
Tribunal why that is and what steps he has taken to shorten
his speech?

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have sent a letter to the
Tribunal today which I believe is not yet in the Tribunal's
possession. In it I requested that in the case of the
defendant Keitel I should be permitted to exceed the regular
length of time, which had been limited to one day for the
major cases. When, at the request of the Tribunal, I stated
the time which my final speech would take, I had my
manuscript completed. This manuscript would have taken about
seven hours. I gave that manuscript to the Translation
Division in that form because it was no longer possible to
alter it. I submitted the first part last Wednesday and then
the second part on Saturday morning.

If the Tribunal in accordance with its decision fixes one
day, that is, five and a half actual hours of speech, as the
maximum and is unwilling to depart from that ruling in any
case, not even in the case of the defendant Keitel who has
been particularly seriously implicated, then I shall be
forced to eliminate certain passages from the manuscript and
to submit them only in writing. I hope the Tribunal will
also decide whether that is possible.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal takes note of the
fact that when you were asked how long your speech would
take, you said, I think, seven hours.

DR. NELTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Seven hours. Well, according to the estimate
which has been given to the Tribunal, the speech which you
have submitted for translation would take about thirteen
hours. That is nearly double as long as you yourself said;
and it is almost exactly double the length of the speech
which has been submitted for the defendant Ribbentrop, whose
case is almost as extensive, if not quite

[Page 79]

as extensive, and it appears to the Tribunal to be out of
all reason to put in a speech which will probably take
nearly double the time that you yourself stated. The speech
you put in is more than double the length of the speech
which has been put in on behalf of the defendant Goering.

DR. NELTE: Naturally, I am unable to know by what points of
view the counsel for Reichsmarschall Goering or Foreign
Minister von Ribbentrop are guided and governed. I can only
be guided by my own views and sense of duty.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that is a matter of comparison, it is
true, but you said seven hours yourself, and you now put in
a speech which will probably take thirteen.

DR. NELTE: I believe, Mr. President, that I shall make that
speech in seven hours, if I have seven hours' speaking time.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal has given this matter a
very full consideration, as you are aware, and they have
said that every speech must be made in one day, and that
will take up some considerable time for the whole of the
defendants to make their speeches.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I shall wait for your decision. If
I am confined to one day, then I shall have to leave out
certain parts from my manuscript. But in that case I should
have to ask that the remainder be taken cognizance of by the
Tribunal, because everything that I have included in my
manuscript is the minimum of what should be delivered on
such a comprehensive case.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, we will consider that application
for you to be allowed to put in the other passages in your
speech, and we will let defendants' counsel know what our
decision is upon that.

Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has now received a full report
showing the immense trouble taken by the Secretariat to find
or to try to find the witness Schulze, Otto Schulze, for you
since you first asked for him in February of this year, and
the Tribunal would like to know what steps you have taken in
the meantime to try to find him.

DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Mr. President, that there was no
need to find the witness because, actually, it was known
that he was living in Hamburg-Blankenese, and because, in my
opinion, he is still in Hamburg-Blankenese, and I have given
this address to the General Secretariat many times.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you knew what the General Secretary's
office were doing about the matter. You knew that they were
unable to find him at the address. You knew that they had
sent the interrogatories to Washington because they were
told he had been taken over there, and we are told that you
have been in Hamburg yourself.

DR. SIEMERS: That the interrogatory was sent to Washington
is something which I have known only since last Friday after
my return from Hamburg. I personally did not anticipate that
such a mistake or such a misunderstanding could arise.
Unfortunately, I also do not know how it did arise. Far be
it from me to make any kind of accusation. I have merely
requested that if the document was received, then the
Tribunal should agree to receive it in evidence later.
Unfortunately, I cannot submit it today. I immediately
informed the General Secretariat of the address once more.
In my opinion, Admiral Schulze is not in captivity. It is
possible that during my absence some misunderstanding
occurred, but I myself only heard that last Friday.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I cannot understand why, during all
these months that you have been here and have had full
opportunity of seeing the General Secretary and have
received all the assistance which you and all the other
defendants' counsel have received from the General
Secretariat, you should not have helped the General
Secretary better to find this witness. That is all.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.